Lawmakers aim, pull the trigger, misfire ... again

The original "gang that couldn't shoot straight" - Arizona's Legislature - passed a bill last month naming the Colt Single Action Army Revolver as the "official state firearm," then promptly used the weapon to shoot themselves in the feet.

"Normally making something the 'official something' of the state is not given a lot of thought, and this bill is no different," Republican state Sen. Adam Driggs told me. "But in this case, I believe my fellow legislators didn't quite grasp the uncharted territory this bill was putting them in."

Forty-three of Driggs' Republican colleagues signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. No Democrats did so, perhaps because a few of them actually had read the Arizona Constitution.

"The state of Arizona has an official bird and official tree and official language, and this year we officially became 'the Grand Canyon State,' " Driggs told me. "To the best of my knowledge, the Legislature has never singled out a commercial product to endorse as an official product of the state. When I explained my opposition on the Senate floor, I noted that commercial products should pay to have licensing rights to be the official something or other for the state. Otherwise, it is simply free advertising. Ironically, this bill was championed by those most opposed to state laws which favor one industry over another and government."

If lawmakers decide to designate an "official bull's-eye" to complement our official revolver, they might consider using a rendering of the state's Constitution. They've already managed to blow a hole in it without firing a shot.

The Constitution's "gift clause" reads:

"Neither the state, nor any county, city, town municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise . . . "

I asked Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, if naming the Colt revolver as Arizona's official firearm might have violated that clause.

"I had not thought of that, but I think you're right," he said. "I think that it is technically a violation of the gift clause. I have defined a gift as something you would like to find underneath the Christmas tree. Would Colt have liked to find this under the Christmas tree? Obviously so, since they lobbied for it. It's obviously something of value, just as designating an official sponsor of the Super Bowl is something of value. And the state gave it away for free."

Driggs described it this way, "I think I used the example of Kodak being the official film of the Olympic Games, or US Airways having their name on the basketball arena. Those companies paid for that. In accordance with free-market principles, there was value given to Colt with this bill, and there should be compensation to the state. The fact that Colt's lobbyist brought this idea to the Legislature speaks volumes."

In essence, Driggs and Bolick believe that lawmakers are required by law to get something in return before giving something to a private business.

Legislators might find a construction company willing to erect a wall on our southern border in exchange for being named Arizona's "official danged-fence company."

Or maybe they could strike a deal with Advil, Tylenol or Bayer to become Arizona's "official painkiller," provided the company pays health-care costs for some of the thousands of poor Arizonans who were kicked off the state's Medicaid program.

Of course, legislators could have asked Colt to supply weapons for some police departments in exchange for the official-firearm designation. But most of the zombielike members of the Republican-controlled Legislature don't question their leaders.

On the other hand, the mindless fidelity of our politicians could generate big bucks if Arizona were to negotiate a deal for an "official state beverage":